Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/16/1993 01:30 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
February 16, 1993
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Tim Kelly, Chairman
Senator Steve Rieger, Vice-Chairman
Senator Drue Pearce
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Judy Salo
MEMBERS ABSENT
NONE
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 97
"An Act relating to enhanced 911 emergency reporting
systems; and providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT HELD OVER UNTIL 2/23/93.
SENATE BILL NO. 99
"An Act relating to the improvement of state finances
through reduction of operating costs of certain state
agencies and establishment of certain fees; and providing
for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 106
"An Act authorizing power transmission interties between
Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula, between Healy and
Fairbanks, and between the Swan Lake and Tyee Lake
hydroelectric projects, and approving the design and
construction costs of the interties; and providing for an
effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 97 - NONE
SB 99 - NONE
SB 106 - NONE
WITNESS REGISTER
Cheryl Frasca, Division Director
Division of Budget Review, O.M.B.
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 99.
Stephanie Cole
Deputy Administrative Officer
Judicial Branch
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2084
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 99.
Brent McGee, Director
Office of Public Advocacy
Department of Administration
900 W. 5th, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99
Arthur H. Snowden
Administrative Director
Judicial Branch
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2084
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 99.
Mary Lou Madden, Asst. Director
Postsecondary Education Commission
Department of Education
P.O. Box 110505
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0505
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99.
Jack Wray, Executive Director
Alaska Police Standards Council
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99.
Juanita Hensley, Chief
Driver Service
Division of Motor Vehicles
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99802-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 99.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-11, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN TIM KELLY called the Labor and Commerce Committee
meeting to order at 1:30 1:50 p.m.
SENATOR KELLY announced the substantive work on SB 106
(AUTHORIZING POWER TRANSMISSION INTERTIES) would more
appropriately be under-taken in the Finance Committee.
SENATOR RIEGER moved to pass SENATE BILL NO. 106 on to the
Finance Committee with individual recommendations. Without
objections, so ordered.
SENATOR KELLY introduced the Governor's bill, SB 99
(FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE GOVERNMENT) and invited
CHERYL FRASCA, Office of Management and Budget, to lead the
committee through the bill.
MS. FRASCA explained the bill was drafted to improve state
finances by reducing costs in the operation in certain state
agencies, and to authorize state agencies to defray a
greater portion of their costs through the imposition of
fees. She said the title would allow for this consolidation
in the bill.
SENATOR KELLY directed MS. FRASCA to explain all sections of
the bill.
MS. FRASCA directed attention to the Governor's transmittal
letter in the bill packet, which, she said, gave a section
by section description of the bill. Attached to his letter
is a fiscal sectional which associates any revenues to be
generated by the bill, or costs associated with implementing
the bill.
- Sections 1 through 32 deal with the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board, and would make the issuance of
liquor licenses a double fee biennial. It would lighten the
renewal-related work and spread the load.
- Sections 33 through 35 would delete certain
duplicated functions in the Office of Public Advocacy and
would enable OPA to charge fees for public guardians.
Number 057
- Sections 36 to 38 relate to the state's student loan
program and would allow the Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education to assess a one percent guarantee
fee for all student loans made under the Scholarship Loan
Program - effective July 1, 1994. MS. FRASCA gave an
example of how the assessment would work.
- Sections 39 through 43 would authorize the same one
percent loan guarantee fee to be assessed on loans under the
Memorial Scholarship Loan Program, the Teacher Scholarship
Loan Program, and the Family Education Loan Program.
SENATOR KELLY asked if anyone from Postsecondary Education
was there to testify, and MS. FRASCA said there was.
- Section 44 would allow the Department of Labor to set
fees, by regulation, for administering examinations, and to
process applications for special boiler and pressure vessel
inspectors. Currently, there is no charge for processing
these applications.
Number 090
- Sections 45 and 46, related to the Department of
Labor, would make the issuance of plumber and electrician
certificates more efficient, stabilize program receipts, and
set the time frame by regulation. MS. FRASCA said there
would be no fiscal impact, but just evens out the workload.
- Section 46 would also allow the Department of Labor,
by regulation, to charge a fee for duplicate certificates of
fitness, in line with the actual costs incurred in issuing
the certificates.
SENATOR RIEGER and SENATOR SALO asked MS. FRASCA to slow
down. SENATOR KELLY said after the overview the departments
would be providing more details.
- Section 47 related to the Department of Public Safety
and would permit the Alaska Police Standards Council to
adopt regulations to collect fees for processing
applications for state certification of police, correctional
officers, and instructors employed by non-state agencies.
SENATOR KELLY asked MS. FRASCA if she charged just to make
an application to go to work, and MS. FRASCA said it was for
processing applications for state certification. It was
agreed there would be additional explanation later.
SENATOR KELLY outlined a procedure for reviewing each
section after her overview.
Number 120
- Section 48 would raise the required fees for filing
an application for an employment agency permit under AS
23.15.390 from $10 to $100, to reflect the costs of the
review done by the Department of Labor for these permits.
- Section 49 again relates to the Office of Public
Advocacy and deletes a requirement that has allowed the
Office of Public Advocacy to provide guardians ad litem in
child custody proceedings. She explained the courts
currently do a similar investigation, and it would save OPA
investigating costs of about $100 thousand.
- Section 50 would clarify the Department of Public
Safety's ability to recover the costs involved in generating
computerized registration lists. SENATOR KELLY made sure
someone was present from the Department of Public Safety.
- Section 51 would allow the Department of Public
Safety to issue special request license plates, which she
described. MS. FRASCA said there was a potential for
generating #300 thousand in revenue.
Number 144
- Section 52 changes the eligibility for free vehicle
registration and license plates for disabled persons by
adopting the definition of limited or impaired ability to
walk, which appears in federal regulations. MS. FRASCA
described the contrast to the present program.
- In Section 53 the Department of Public Safety
clarifies that car dealers must use both dealer plates on
each vehicle. MS. FRASCA explained it was the result of a
court case.
- Sections 54 and 58, and the repeal of AS 28.10.011 in
Section 70, clarify that mobile homes are not considered
vehicles for purposes of administering motor vehicle laws,
and motor homes would no longer be subject to registration
by the Division of Motor Vehicles.
- Section 55 explains senior citizens are entitled to
free vehicle registration for only one vehicle once each
calendar year.
- Section 56 would create an incentive for people to do
mail-in registration for vehicles by charging an additional
fee of $10.00 for those who do not participate by mail. MS.
FRASCA estimated it would generate an extra $2 million in
revenue as a result of the $10.00 fee.
- In Section 57, the Department of Public Safety would
clarify that companies and businesses, registering vehicles
in their company or business name, must pay commercial
registration fees.
- Section 58 was covered in the explanation for Section
54, relating to mobile homes.
- Section 59 would amend the definition of program
receipts to exclude money the state receives for
administering group insurance health programs. MS. FRASCA
explained how the money reimbursed by AETNA is viewed as
"program receipts," and deposited in the general fund. She
said this change would reclassify that money to "system
benefits receipts."
Number 184
- Sections 60 and 61 would require payments from
insurance claims settlements to be deposited directly into
the Catastrophe Reserve Account. MS. FRASCA explained the
Division of Risk Management credits the general fund, and
the insurance claim settlement is appropriated to the state
agency to which the payment is related. The United States
government demands that a portion of such insurance
recoveries be refunded to the appropriate federal program.
- Section 62 would give the Department of Natural
Resources authority to accept cash or other donations to
support the system of state parks and recreational
facilities.
Number 213
- Section 63 would expand the authority of the
Department of Natural Resources to collect reasonable fees
for services provided in state parks. MS. FRASCA said, in
the fourth year of a phased implementation schedule, these
new fees are expected to raise around $400,000.
- Section 64 is related to the other Office of Public
Advocacy changes.
-Sections 65 and 66 would amend and add a new
subsection to AS 44.46.025 to provide the Department of
Environmental Conservation with increased authority to
charge fees to offset the direct costs of various programs
designed to avoid and rectify pollution, to ensure healthy
and safe public facilities, and to assist businesses in
complying with local, state, and federal environmental
standards. MS. FRASCA outlined the problems presently
facing DEC.
- Section 67 would amend AS 47.07.020(b) to add a new
category of persons to the state's option list of those
eligible for federal Medicaid coverage and would allow for
reimbursement by the federal government.
- Section 68 would add to the list of groups eligible,
under the optional Medicaid program, those persons under the
age of 21, who are eligible for adoption assistance due to
special medical or rehabilitative needs. MS. FRASCA
explained how this program would allow reimbursement from
the federal government, also.
- Both Sections 69 and 70 refer to the Office of Public
Advocacy, and Section 70 would repeal several statutes, some
of which are related to earlier amendments. An exception is
AS 28.22.181(k), in which the Department of Public Safety
which would no longer register vehicles, only occasionally
used on a highway, but would require them to charge the same
fees as full use vehicles.
- Section 71 would allow for a temporary fee schedule
to allow state parks to begin charging fees, while they get
their regular fee schedule through the regulatory
promulgation process.
- Section 72 provides a transition schedule for the
Alcohol Beverage Control Board to change liquor licenses on
a bi-annual schedule.
Number 256
SENATOR KELLY opened the meeting to questions for MS. FRASCA
by the committee members.
SENATOR RIEGER asked about any consideration of fees for
agency services in the preparation of the bill as to who
initiates the fee. MS. FRASCA said some of the fees had
been discussed last year by both the legislature and the
agencies, but there was no philosophical discussion.
SENATOR RIEGER reviewed why an imposition of fees by the
agencies concerned him.
MS. FRASCA mentioned restaurants and fees, and SENATOR
RIEGER gave an example of his discomfort. She didn't think
the fees were in that type of category, but she said they
would look at them in a discretionary nature of generating
revenue. SENATOR RIEGER wanted to know who was in control
of the process.
Number 291
SENATOR SALO questioned the reason user fees were put
together in this kind of a package. MS. FRASCA explained
there was a similar bill generated by the legislature last
year, and it was to focus on the whole package this year.
She discussed the role of the legislative liaison office in
the number of bills that could be introduced, and why it was
packaged as an OMB bill.
SENATOR SALO, in following SENATOR RIEGER'S concerns, asked
about the air quality permits and the regulation of fees in
Section 66. She described the annoyance from her
constituents on inspections and fees. MS. FRASCA said they
were federally mandated to make the inspections and cover
the costs. She elaborated on federal requirements for
direct and indirect costs.
SENATOR SALO asked MS. FRASCA if it was better to have the
fees established in regulation v. setting in statute. MS.
FRASCA said it was the direction being followed by the state
the last couple of years, where previously the fees were set
by law, specifying the dollar amount. She discussed the
difficulty in having the fees revisited by the legislative
process, so the trend has been to have them changed by
regulation.
Number 333
SENATOR KELLY referred to a letter from DAVID DIERDORFF,
Revisor of Statutes, questioning the single title, and he
asked his aide, JOSH FINK for clarification. MR. FINK
quoted MR. DIERDORFF'S suggestion for four separate bills
and an opinion from TAM COOK, Director of Legislative Legal
Counsel.
SENATOR KELLY surmised the present SB 99 wouldn't survive as
presently written and was liable to broken up into separate
bills.
SENATOR LINCOLN, in reviewing the memo from MR. DIERDORFF,
noted his comments about the title of the bill, and she
expressed pleasure the committee may either separate it into
a number of bills or rework the title.
SENATOR PEARCE questioned the funding of APUC for one year,
and how it would be continued. MS. FRASCA said she didn't
realize it had just a one year funding, it wasn't in the
bill, but she would check.
SENATOR KELLY moved to the teleconference network to hear
STEPHANIE COLE, a Deputy Administrative Officer for the
Court System.
MS. COLE expressed concerns about three particular sections
of SB 99 by the Office of Public Advocacy. First she noted
Sections 33 through 35 dealing with the charging of fees for
the cost of providing public guardians - which she did not
oppose.
MS. COLE said the court was opposed to Sections 49, 64, and
69, because these sections would shift the burden of
providing representation, in certain types of court cases,
from the Office of Public Advocacy to the Court System. She
had provided a fiscal note and a narrative explaining the
court's objections to the sections mentioned. If the
legislation was passed, the court would be forced to
contract for these types of services at a higher cost to the
state.
MS. COLE said the sections deleting certain types of cases
from the responsibility of Office of Public Advocacy would
erode the statutory scheme adopted in 1984, which created
the Office of Public Advocacy as a more efficient, conflict-
free system for providing state-funded representation.
MS. COLE, in reference to Section 49, explained it would
affect representation of child-in-custody support in
visitation disputes, and would delete OPA'S responsibility
to provide a guardian ad litem or attorney for the child.
She quoted from the transmittal letter and argued that
Section 49 was misleading.
MS. COLE admitted the court had custody investigators, but
she explained there were only a few investigative personnel
and only in Anchorage and Fairbanks. She said part time
personnel would be added to Ketchikan and Juneau. MS COLE
added these investigators have such a heavy case load, they
hardly ever operate outside of their metropolitan area.
Currently, out of 15 superior courts, with hideous kinds of
cases, only two locations have custody investigators.
Number 396
MS. COLE explained the investigators were neither attorneys
nor advocates, and do not fulfill the same function as a
guardian ad litem appointed by the Office of Public
Advocacy. She continued to explain why the process was not
duplicated in reference to Section 29.
MS. COLE said Section 64 would delete certain
responsibilities from the Office of Public Advocacy such as
representing indigent parents, guardians of children in
cases where the children are being committed for mental
illness, legal and guardian services in adoptions, and legal
services for emancipation cases.
MS. COLE explained Section 69 also referred to the mental
commitment of children for mental disease. She said the
court would have to find the representation provided by OPA
elsewhere, and could not do it as cost effectively as the
Office of Public Advocacy could do with staff and contract
resources. She explained the problem of having an employee
of the court appearing in front of the court, which would be
against court rules.
MS. COLE said the court would have to rely entirely on
contract awards, which would be more expensive. Before OPA
was available, the court relied on conscription, where
private attorneys were told to come into court to represent
the type of cases as described. They were paid at an
extremely low rate, which did not cover their overhead. She
explained this type of conscription was no longer available
because of the DeLisio case.
Number 438
In her final point, MS. COLE said the court system is devoid
of advocacy functions, and necessary to the separation of
powers. This was the reason for the creation of the Office
of Public Advocacy, and she warned of the blurring in the
separation of powers.
SENATOR KELLY opened the meeting to questions from the
committee members.
SENATOR KELLY next called on BRENT MCGEE, Director for the
Office of Public Advocacy, to testify.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if MS. COLE was going to stay on line,
but the teleconference was not set up to do that.
SENATOR KELLY addressed ARTHUR SNOWDEN, Administrative
Director for the Judicial Branch, and suggested he felt
strongly about the subject. MR. SNOWDEN agreed and quoted
several studies saying the Office of Public Advocacy was
doing marvelously under the Executive Branch, and for many
reasons should not be transferred.
SENATOR KELLY wondered what OPA would have left if certain
duties were deleted, and MR. SNOWDEN said some were
constitutional and some were the same as offered in other
states. They discussed the role of the public defender in
the court system.
Number 465
MR. MCGEE told SENATOR KELLY he was not able to respond to
the testimony from MS. COLE, because the teleconference
system was not set up to do so. He was asked for his
opinion of SB 99.
MR. MCGEE clarified that HB 65 before him was the same bill
as SB 99. He began with Sections 32 through 35 which would
allow the Office of Public Advocacy and the Department of
Administration to adopt regulations under which persons
could be charged for the provision of public guardian
services. He outlined a process in such a way that would be
fair to the individuals and efficient for OPA.
MR. MCGEE noted the controversial Sections of 49, 64, and
69, and suggested the court system misunderstood what was
trying to be accomplished. He said it was a choice between
what was nice and what was necessary. He had reviewed the
court system fiscal notes, the Office of Public Advocacy
statute to see which representation is constitutionally
required, and where the form of representation is crucial to
a fair adjudication of the case.
MR. MCGEE did not think it was essential to provide guardian
ad litem services for some people, and he gave some examples
from Section 49 to explain why he thought they were
duplicated services. He thought it would be important for
the committee and the legislature to examine the appointment
of OPA in cases where the custody investigator was already
performing the service.
SENATOR SALO questioned the child custody investigator
serving the same purpose as the person appointed from OPA to
the case, and she wanted to know who served the role of
being an advocate for the child in a custody case.
Number 520
MR. MCGEE answered her questions in terms of what was in the
best interest of the child and the functions of the guardian
ad litem and the investigator.
SENATOR SALO asked for an explanation of the distinctions.
MR. MCGEE explained the role of both the custody
investigator and the guardian ad litem, and he didn't think
it was cost effective to offer duplicated services.
SENATOR SALO quoted MR. MCGEE as saying the guardian ad
litem was used infrequently, and asked him what was the
problem. MR. MCGEE said infrequently still meant thousands
of cases and hundreds of cases paid by his office. He
described custody cases as being complex and time consuming,
and he describe the majority of their services as being to
child-in-need-of-aide cases.
TAPE 93-11, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. MCGEE told SENATOR SALO he didn't think there should be
duplicate services unless there were some exceptional
circumstances shown in a particular case. He suggested the
committee mandate that guardians ad litem would not be
appointed in cases where custody investigators provide
services, and he gave some examples.
SENATOR KELLY asked MS. FRASCA if there was some kind of
position transfer from OPA to the court system if the
changes are made. MS. FRASCA asked MR. MCGEE to answer his
question.
MR. MCGEE proceeded to Section 64, the modification of the
existing statutory mandate of the agency, and he described
the statute as having a number of changes, each of which
affects a relatively small number of cases. He picked a
couple of examples, one which would take OPA out of the
representation of adults, when their child is the subject of
delinquency proceedings. He also described the removal of
OPA from emancipation cases.
MR. MCGEE explained the provisions in SB 69 were in regards
to parents of minors involved in commitment proceedings, and
he used the same arguments as in Section 68.
Number 056
SENATOR LINCOLN, in reference to the emancipation issue,
asked if a 17 year old could go before a judge, fill out a
form, and ask for emancipation. MR. MCGEE explained there
was other criteria that must be met, and a lawyer could be
appointed to assist that child. SENATOR LINCOLN said it was
not a simple task to become emancipated.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked how the changes, as described by MR.
MCGEE, affect persons not in an urban area. MR. MCGEE said
they could testify by teleconference, and he gave an example
of a delinquent child proceedings. He didn't find rural
parents any less involved in the lives of their children
than urban parents, and would be welcome to participate in
those proceedings.
SENATOR LINCOLN returned to Section 33 for clarification on
a quote from the Commissioner of Administration, where the
fee schedule may be based upon ability to pay, whereas, the
Office of Public Advocacy shall charge and collect fees
established. Who makes the determination the fee schedule?
Number 110
MR. MCGEE explained the Commissioner of Administration would
be authorized to establish regulations for the collection of
fees related to public guardian services. He suggested the
word "may" was to allow for greater flexibility in
developing these regulations, and gave an example. He also
explained how the fees could be computed.
SENATOR KELLY thought there might be a consensus from the
committee to pull Sections 49, 64, and 69, and let someone
put them in a separate bill. He moved to delete the
sections. Without objections, so ordered.
MR. SNOWDEN said he would be glad to answer any specific
questions, if another bill was written. He asked the
committee to read the OMB report, which explained where the
Office of Public Advocacy should be and why.
Number 160
SENATOR LINCOLN asked MR. SNOWDEN about the deleted
sections, and he said the court system's fiscal note would
disappear.
SENATOR KELLY returned to Section 1 and the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board, and asked for questions. SENATOR
RIEGER said he had no questions of the first 32 sections.
SENATOR KELLY asked for testimony on any of these sections.
SENATOR SALO questioned MS. FRASCA about switching from an
annual fee to a biannual, and whether there was any
consideration in reducing the license fee.
MS. FRASCA explained the license fees exceed the cost of
administering the ABC Board, so the excess revenue goes into
the general fund.
SENATOR KELLY asked for questions on Sections 33 through 35,
and SENATOR RIEGER expressed some uneasiness at the extent
of the discretion granted in the sections.
SENATOR KELLY asked if there was any support for maintaining
sections 33 through 35.
SENATOR LINCOLN expressed reservations at making decisions
when she hadn't read all of the material. SENATOR KELLY
assured her there would be two more meetings on the bill.
SENATOR KELLY invited MARY LOU MADDEN, Assistant Director to
the Postsecondary Education Commission, to testify on
Sections 36 through 38.
MS. MADDEN explained how the student loan fund was funded by
bond receipts and repayment of past loans, and no longer
receive a general fund appropriation. She said about $1
million in loans was written off each year from death, total
disability, or bankruptcy. She explained the commission was
seeking to conserve its capital for the long term by using a
guarantee fee, or insurance fee, to help off set the fund
loss. They had estimated a 1% fee on their funds would
generate about $500 thousand, to recover about a half of
what they lose each year.
In answer to a question from SENATOR KELLY, MS. MADDEN
answered discussed bankruptcy, and said they had only
written off $94 thousand. He asked her if the student loan
fund was asking for a general fund appropriation, and she
said they weren't. SENATOR KELLY clarified the loan fund
could manage well with the assistance of Sections 36 through
38.
Number 228
SENATOR RIEGER asked for some clarification on the interest
rate for the loan fund, bond purchase, and portfolios at 5%.
MS MADDEN answered his questions and expanded on the
handling of their loan funds.
SENATOR KELLY led a discussion with MS. MADDEN on all facets
of the student loan fund with questions from SENATORS SALO,
RIEGER, and LINCOLN. They discussed the forgiveness
benefits, 5% loans, percent of defaults, default
personalities, aggressive collections, and the use of
private collection agencies.
Number 291
SENATOR KELLY asked if the Department of Labor was ready to
discuss Section 44, but since no one was there, he said it
would be heard again on Thursday, 2/18/93. SENATOR RIEGER
expressed concern over both an increase in inspection fees
and in spending from some of the departments.
MS. FRASCA said she was not aware he wanted testimony from
all of the departments.
SENATOR KELLY proceeded to Sections 45, 46, and 47. SENATOR
RIEGER expressed the same concerns on Section 45 as he did
on Section 44.
SENATOR KELLY had some questions on Section 47, and JACK
WRAY, Executive Director of the Alaska Police Standards
Council, was there to testify.
MR. WRAY explained the council had asked him to request this
section submitted in order for them to have the authority to
collect professional fees for certification. He said the
intent of the council that all officers should pay this fee
for certification.
SENATOR KELLY asked for the procedure involved in processing
applications for certifications, and MR. WRAY described the
process in detail. There followed an extensive question and
answer period between SENATOR KELLY and MR. WRAY on
certification, professional fees, personnel checks, and new
hires.
Number 362
SENATOR LINCOLN asked whether the Village Public Safety
Officers came under the provisions, and MR. WRAY said
currently the VPSO'S were not under the Police Standards
Council, which are set by the Department of Public Safety.
SENATOR KELLY asked for a reasonable figure to put into the
bill rather than using "reasonable fee," and MR. WRAY said
he had used the figure of $50 per certificate in the fiscal
note he wrote for HB 65. SENATOR KELLY clarified it would
be directed to all officers, and MR. WRAY estimated the
number for each year, generating about $10,000 per year.
Number 420
SENATOR KELLY asked MS. FRASCA about Section 48, and she
said it dealt with employment agency permits, to increase
the fee from $10 to $100. SENATOR KELLY suggested it was a
1000% increase, and MS. FRASCA said it was the
recommendation from the Department of Labor.
SENATOR LINCOLN quoted Legislative Legal Counsel as stating
Section 48 was not within the present title of the bill, and
asked for a response. MS. FRASCA said the Administration
had asked the Department of Law to respond to the statement
from Legal Counsel about the title, and she was still
waiting for an answer.
Number 403
SENATOR KELLY introduced Section 50 and noted that JUANITA
HENSLEY, Chief of Driver Services for the Division of Motor
Vehicles, was there to testify.
SENATOR RIEGER asked her about "special request license
plates," and MS. HENSLEY described the current statute which
would allow a gold and blue flag instead of "The Last
Frontier." She had been approached by people wishing
special plates designed separate from their personalized
plates or vanity plates. MS. HENSLEY said it would give the
department the opportunity to design a plate for a fee,
similar to the personalized plate.
SENATOR SALO asked for clarification on colors for plates,
and MS. HENSLEY explained it would only be for special
plates such as the previous plate with the Alaskan bear.
She said there were people who had requested that plate
again, but this would only be for special designed plates -
with an extra charge.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she had a problem with Section 51. In
reference to designing a special plate for the Centennial
Highway commemoration, she described the extensive committee
hearings to get it accomplished.
SENATOR LINCOLN stressed strongly the committee was getting
away from fees and into a new service. She opposed Section
51 on the grounds of cost.
SENATOR KELLY asked MS. HENSLEY why there wasn't a provision
in the bill to charge more money for the special request
plates, and she said it was in the fee bill last year, which
was not passed. SENATOR KELLY asked MS. FRASCA if it would
fit in this bill, and she explained it would cost $30 extra
to get special request plates.
SENATOR LINCOLN suggested there would need to be a design
department, and asked for comments from the Department of
Public Safety. She also asked MS. HENSLEY how the city
police feel about having different types of license plates
out on the streets.
MS. HENSLEY said COMMISSIONER BURTON was in favor of
changing the license plates as long as it meets the
regulations for clearly marked licenses.
SENATOR LINCOLN thought COMMISSIONER BURTON meant one new
plate, but she knew from previous testimony twelve newly
designed plates were to be established. MS. HENSLEY said
they would have to pay extra for the designed plates, and
she explained plates had to be purchased in lots of 900 and
over in order to get a price break.
SENATOR KELLY suggested it was a revenue measure, and MS.
HENSLEY agreed. SENATOR LINCOLN and MS. HENSLEY discussed
the ordering of the plates.
TAPE 93-12, SIDE A
Number 001
SENATOR SALO returned to Section 50 to question the fee for
generating computerized vehicle registration lists, and
wanted to know who would request such a list. MS. HENSLEY
referred to a freedom of information bill, which made such
lists public information, and in order to recoup the cost,
they charge $35 per thousand. She discussed the sale of the
entire motor vehicle tape to two companies and the services
these companies provide. She said motor vehicle records
have become useful information, and she described the sale
of Public Safety records.
Number 042
SENATOR KELLY asked if he could request the name of a person
if he had the license number, and MS. HENSLEY said he could
- for a fee. She also described a cheaper way to do it at a
public terminal in the motor vehicle office on Dowling Road.
She said the exception was driver's license records.
SENATOR SALO clarified the fees would just recover costs,
and MS. HENSLEY agreed. In answer to questions by SENATOR
LINCOLN on the same subject, there was a general review of
the information.
SENATOR KELLY decided to finish the driver license sections
for this committee meeting, and continuing with Sections 52
and 53.
Number 107
MS. HENSLEY explained, presently, a handicapped license
plate can be secured at the designation of a doctor or from
agencies such as the Veteran's Administration. She said the
bill would use the federal language, which states the
handicapped person must not be able to walk a certain
distance and affects their mobility, to allow motor vehicles
to issue handicapped license plates.
SENATOR SALO asked if there was some problem with the bill
title and Section 52, and MS. FRASCA provided the logic
behind the change. SENATOR KELLY clarified the change in
law would only apply to new applicants, but MS. HENSLEY said
it would apply to everyone. There was a lengthily
discussion between SENATOR KELLY and MS. HENSLEY, and both
SENATOR KELLY and SENATOR SALO decided quite a few people
presently having free handicap licensees were going to be
unhappy. MS. HENSLEY presented the flip side of those who
objected to seemingly handicapped people walking through
parking lots and malls.
Number 178
SENATOR LINCOLN referred to the memo from Legislative Legal
Counsel to suggest the change might increase administrative
expenses to the state. MS. FRASCA argued the bill was not
adding anything new and shouldn't increase the costs.
SENATOR KELLY questioned whether a person could get a
handicapped license for a spouse, but does the driving for
the handicapped spouse. MS. HENSLEY said they would need
proper documentation.
SENATOR KELLY asked for comments on Section 53, and MS.
HENSLEY described the license requirements as a clean-up
measure for automobile dealers. It would generate revenue.
SENATOR KELLY asked about Section 54, and MS. HENSLEY said
titles would no longer be issued for mobile homes, since the
use of titles was lax. She explained the hassle of keeping
track of previous owners of mobile homes. SENATOR KELLY
asked for a definition of mobile home, and MS. HENSLEY
referred to Section 58 for a definition. MS. FRASCA
referred SENATOR SALO to page 18, line 3 of the bill, which
removes mobile homes.
MS. HENSLEY said Section 55 clarified, by statute, that only
once each calendar year, a senior citizen would be eligible
for a free vehicle registration and one set of license
plates.
Number 250
SENATOR SALO and MS. HENSLEY discussed the registration of
snow machines, and she asked if Section 54 was an
appropriate place to register snowmobiles. MS. HENSLEY said
the Department of Public Safety would oppose registration of
snowmobiles, since they do not want them on the highways.
SENATOR SALO was thinking of the growing problem in Alaska
with theft of snowmobiles with no way to trace them. She
asked some related questions about personal property tax in
relation to snow machines.
SENATOR KELLY asked MS. FRASCA how she was going to stop the
floor amendments on the bill, and he asked if it was the
same as the fee bill last year. MS. HENSLEY answered it did
go to the floor, and had lots of amendments.
Number 305
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the bill was going to be broken up
into four other bills, and MS. FRASCA said she was willing
to work to see some of the parts proceed.
There being no further business to come before the
committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|